M/S MAA SHARDA TRADERS v. AUTHORISED OFFICER BANK OF BARODA
WPC/1337/2022 · 2025-03-22
Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11235 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 11235 (CHH) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
1
2025:CGHC:13907
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 1337 of 2022 1 - M/s Maa Sharda Traders Pro. Ramesh Chandak, S/o Late P.D. Chandak, Aged About 55 Yeas, Part Of Kh.No. 577/1, New Kh.No. 577/3, P.H. No. 13, Mauja Jevra, Village Jevra, Sirsa, Dhamdha Road, Tahsil
And
District
Durg
Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramesh Chandak, S/o Late P.D. Chandak, Aged About 55 Years Ward No. 9, Hatri Bazar, Gunderdehi, District Balod Chhattisgarh. At Present H.No. 477, Street No. 24, Smriti Nagar, Bhilai Chhattisgarh.
... Petitioners versus 1 - Authorised Officer Bank Of Baroda Formerly Known As Dena Bank, Ganjpura Branch, G.E. Road, Ganjpara, Durg Chhattisgarh. E-Mail- Ganjpa@Bankofbaroda.Co.In 2 - Purshotam Gandhi, S/o Ramnarayan Gandhi, Aged About 64 Years R/o Mig, 638, Padmnabhpur, District Durg Chhattisgarh. 3 - The District Magistrate/collector District Durg Chhattisgarh.
... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioner :- None. For State :- Mr. Khulesh Sahu, P.L. For Respondent No.1 :- Mr. Vinod Deshmukh, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR
2 SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order On Board 22.03.2025
1. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 submits that the matter has already been decided by the District Magistrate, District Durg under Section 14 of the SARFAESI Act way back on 28.11.2022 and, as such, the prayer made by the petitioner has become redundant and the petition has become infructuous. It is further submitted that the matter is traveled to DRT and the DRT has also passed certain orders which the petitioner has not complied.
2. Considering the submission made by the respondent and the fact that the counsel for the petitioner is not appearing, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous. sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha